Behind the scenes of mandatory biodiversity net gain

During this conversation, Julia, Katie and Nick touch on:

• Definition, requirements and legal aspects of BNG
• Policy development and implementation
• Pivotal moments in the journey of making BNG mandatory
• The role of industry and the importance of collaboration
• Positive aspects and areas for improvement
• Advice for newcomers in the environmental sector

Intro: Welcome to Mott MacDonald's podcast, Nature Positive: The Inside Story. In this podcast series, our host, Julia Baker, will be talking to industry leaders and experts about nature related policy, advisory law and much more. In today's episode, Julia sits down with Nick White and Katie Gowers to discuss the behind the scenes into the making of mandatory BNG. So don't forget to subscribe and, most importantly, enjoy this episode. 

Julia: Katie and Nick, welcome to our Nature Positive: The Inside Story podcast. It's lovely to have you. Thank you for joining us. 

Thank you for having us. 

Julia: Would you like to introduce yourself? 

Katie: I'm Katie Gowers. I'm the policy lead for the biodiversity metric in Defra. 

Julia: Nick? 

Nick: I'm Nick White, I'm a principal advisor for net gain at Natural England. 

Julia: Katie, what is mandatory net gain? 

Katie: The big question. So biodiversity net gain is an approach to development and/or land management that aims to leave the natural environment in a measurably better state. So, what that means for mandatory BNG policy is that developers have to demonstrate that they're delivering a 10% gain in biodiversity associated with their planning permission. So, that's calculated in accordance with the biodiversity metric, which is the area I lead on, and that's used to assess the biodiversity value of the development, pre and post development, using habitats as a proxy. And so they have to demonstrate a 10% gain. If they can't do that on-site, they also have the option to buy off-site units from land owners. So, they're creating or enhancing habitats and selling those units on the market. And I guess the important thing to note for BNG is that significant on-site enhancements and off-site enhancements need to be legally secured for 30 years with a habitat management and monitoring plan in place, which essentially details how they're going to meet their habitat targets with action on the ground. 

Julia: Right. So, most developments that that need planning permission, it's about following the biodiversity gain hierarchies, so avoiding or reducing impacts and loss and then creating wildlife-rich habitats and demonstrating that through the biodiversity metric. 

Katie: Yep, exactly. And there's a condition on their permission, meaning they have to submit a biodiversity gain plan, which essentially details all that information. So, just showing how they've met their gain requirement. And it's a fairly new policy, so it commenced in February for major development and then in April for small sites. So, we're just over six months in and we've started to see the first developments come through and we've also seen the market start to scale up. So, there's a biodiversity net gain register that Natural England leads on. And at the moment, at the time of recording, there are 11 sites on there, equating to about 250 hectares of land, which is now dedicated to habitat creation enhancement. So, exciting.  

Julia: Net gain over 30 years. 

Katie: Yeah. 

Julia: OK, let's go behind the scenes because I'm just fascinated. What was your role in making mandatory net gain come to life? 

Katie: Sure. So, I was a senior policy advisor in 2022 and then moved to be a policy lead in 2023. 

Julia: Right. 

Katie: So I will start, if it's OK, just talk us through all of the actions from 2021 through to commencement, if that's a good place to start? So, first big thing was the Environment Bill which achieved Royal Assent and became the Environment Act back in November 21. And this is the primary legislation for BNG. So, that essentially sets out the bones of the policy and it provides legal powers for us to create secondary legislation, which is all the regulations for BNG. So that was back in November 2021 and we set a two-year timetable to try and start the commencement for BNG, which was quite ambitious. And then, in that time, we had a policy consultation, so that's essentially seeking stakeholder feedback on the direction of the policy, and then we produced a response to that giving some certainty into the direction of the policy.  

Then we had to draft all the secondary legislation. So, that document’s called Statutory Instruments and we had six of them for BNG shared between Defra and the department responsible for planning, so that's MHCLG. They recently changed their name, so don't ask me what that's for. So, we had six Statutory Instruments and then we had to produce all of the guidance to support them because the Statutory Instruments, they set out the day-to-day operations, the policy and the regulations. But the guidance is what people will actually refer to, to learn about the policy. 

Julia: Like the user guidance? 

Katie: Yeah, exactly, yeah. And then we had to develop two digital systems to support mandatory BNG as well, which Natural England led on, so the register and the credit sales system. And they had to be developed in tandem with the regulations. So, there was quite a lot of making sure that it was all aligned. And same with the rest of the SIs, they obviously have to work together to build the policy as a whole. There was a lot of stakeholder engagement in the run up to mandatory BNG. And we also had all of the metric-related work. So, there were previous iterations of the metric for voluntary BNG and we had to make them statutory. So, that involved a metric consultation, a response and then updating the metric tool and laying the metric in Parliament, which is what I was responsible for, for commencement. 

Julia: So, when you said it takes two years, I did think, really? Then you've just talked about everything that you've just done. 

Katie: Yeah, there was a lot. 

Julia: And we'll come to day one, but we certainly didn't anticipate… Back in the day, Nick, it was just the metric and suddenly we've got this incredible legislation and all those things. You talked about laying the metric in front of Parliament. What does that mean and what did you do? 

Katie: So, essentially, when you lay something in Parliament, you couldn't just take the spreadsheet and present it to them, it has to be in very specific format. So, this is something called an Act Paper, which is just, how many pages is it? 80 pages, I think, for the metric, of all of the formula, the tables, all of the key information and rules, essentially everything that you would need to calculate biodiversity value, just to show how we are doing it. 

Julia: And you put that in a paper? 

Katie: Yeah, put that in a paper, presented it to Parliament. There's obviously an awful lot of admin that goes alongside that, but the main thing is sending that paper in so that they can lay it before Parliament. And there was some careful sequencing as well because you have to commence certain provisions before you can do that, and you have to do that before you lay the other regulations. So, yeah, it was fun. 

Julia: Did they understand it? 

Katie: Yeah. I mean, you have people looking at it who are experts for ministers, and then it gets presented to Parliament. Then they do a bit of translation. 

Julia: And take us through that. So, the paper you did, the 80 pages, you laid it before Parliament. Do they talk about it? Do they give you the thumbs up? 

Katie: For the Act Paper, no. So you just have to lay it before Parliament and then it just gets essentially printed on a little website to say that it's been laid. But for the regulations, there are two types of Statutory Instruments. So there's affirmative and negative SIs. 

Julia: Right. 

Katie: For negative, you just lay them and as long as no one objects, they can pass into law. For positive, for which I think we had two for BNG, they are debated. So there was a debate before commencement. 

Julia: Right, OK. Was there a pivotal moment that really shaped what is mandatory BNG now? 

Katie: BNG started back in 2012 with the offsetting paper and it's been developed for 12 years now. So, I think there's probably been so many pivotal moments over the years with so many different people feeding in, we've got some brilliant stakeholders. So I think it's been a very long time that the policy's been shaped. 

In terms of me personally, the pivotal moment definitely felt like when we had laid the metric and the regulations and we were able to communicate commencement day and it was suddenly real and very exciting. 

Julia: Yeah, definitely. 

Katie: So, yeah, that was probably mine. Yeah. 

Julia: And what was the greatest challenge? Because at that time there was COVID and Brexit and everything like that. It wasn't just BNG. So, for you personally, what did you find the greatest challenge? 

Katie: Yeah, post-COVID, there were so many different priorities being juggled as Government and, as I just laid out, there was quite a lot of actions we had to take. So, it was just the sheer amount of stuff we had to do and the sequencing of it was probably the challenge for me. So, workload was quite intense for a while. 

Julia: Imagine your To Do list. 

Katie: Yeah, yeah, it was scary. Lots of red and underlining. 

Julia: And Nick, what was your role during that? 

Nick: So, I've been involved with what's become mandatory biodiversity net gain before Katie was getting involved on the Defra side. So, there was a period after the pilots that Katie referred to where industry was really in the driving seat, if you like, in terms of taking forward different approaches to how you might calculate nature and look at how you might leave a positive outcome. And my role became, within Natural England, looking at actually there's real opportunity here. This is something that industry is embracing positively and is looking to try and take forward. There was no thought of legislation at all at that point. That was still… the idea of legislation felt like a dream, if you like. 

Julia: You know what, I remember, I don't know if you remember, we were on our way to one of our trainings and we said, wouldn't it be..? No, no, no. You know? 

Nick: Exactly. 

Julia: It came up to that, maybe it could be mandatory? No, that would never happen. 

Nick: Exactly. So, I was essentially on my own at that point in time within Natural England. 

Julia: Yeah, a team of one. 

Nick: And it was trying to understand what could Natural England, hopefully, usefully do to try and help move this forward? And what had started to happen was the initial work had been done on what was still a paper document as a biodiversity metric. And then various organisations began to try and interpret that and create an actual calculation, that's all from it. And you began to get a multiplicity of approaches emerging. So one of the things I thought would be potentially quite useful that Natural England could help to try and do would be to nudge people towards a more standardised single metric, because one of the lessons from carbon was that having a multiplicity of metrics didn't really help. But then, equally, there's the whole question around, well, what does good practice look like for biodiversity net gain? 

So, this was work that I was really keen to support, that you'd kind of taken the lead on in terms of the industry best practice principles. But then looking at what might a standard for biodiversity net gain look like as well, and initiating discussion with the British Standards Institute with what, ultimately, a few years later, became the British standard for biodiversity net gain. So, it's still very much in the space of there wasn't going to be any legislation, but there's something here that we can do to support an initiative that's come from the development sector and help to try and make it more mainstream. 

Julia: It's interesting though, I think you're right, it did come through the development sector, but the origin was the offset pilot. 

Nick: Yes. 

Julia: And we talked about the… it’s so important the way that didn't work in that sense, but left us with that biodiversity metric. 

Nick: Absolutely. And to me it was a real lesson in never believe that something hasn't worked because you may be surprised by, actually, there's an element of it that really has worked 

Julia: And we needed that step. 

Nick: Exactly. And I think what was really unique about it was, from talking to people in the sector for many years, they'd had an ability to measure their impact on the amount of water they were using, the nature of people they're employing, their carbon, but nothing on nature. They could identify possibly, if they're going to impact on a protected site or a protected species, but that was it. And so having a tool that enabled, within a business, a conversation to be had about nature and also enabled that organisation to talk externally about nature and trying to avoid things and trying to do positive things, I think proved immeasurably powerful. And it's led to what's, ultimately, it's underpinning now, the mandatory net gain approach. But also I think it's led to a real change in terms of where nature sits within development as well. 

Julia: Yeah, absolutely. And it was so transformable when Version 2 came out, we’re all using calculators and everything like that. And then Version 2 came out and the fact that it was produced by Natural England was OK, this is a thing now. And it was it was really interesting the way that… it's the right starting point for industry to, like you say, take the lead, but then you get the inconsistency. Then you get the ‘what does good look like’? All those questions. And it was, I don't think we talked about it, but it was like this lovely relay race. We're like, you know what, we're just going to take the metric. Right, industry, come on, here you go, here's Version 2. What do you think? 

Nick: Absolutely. And people who are familiar with biodiversity net gain in England might wonder why on earth is this metric based in Excel? Well, at the time there was one other person working on it. We had a limit in terms of resource and ability to do things. But again – shout out to my colleague Steve – but then a real positive of that is that it's meant that we had to socialise everything. We had to want to work with others as well to engage developments, engage planning authorities, engage academics, ecologists, etc, to say how can we work with you and how can you help us to make this thing better over time. And so, essentially, over a period of not that many years in the end, you had Version 2, Version 3, a 3.1, a 4 and then finally the statutory one, that's the basis of the legal requirement. But all of that has been shaped and informed and influenced by a load of individuals out there, the unsung heroes, if you like, of net gain who've been developing, testing, feeding back. And that's been so helpful. 

Julia: It's one of these things that, it was so important, and I have to say, just so collaborative, I mean the way that Defra, Natural England really reached out. The trickiness was the change in the metric. And I think that was important to note. But you've always said look, if you're starting with Version 2, just continue with that version. But I would rather take that relatively short amount of time to have that collaboration, to have that discussion, to what we've got now, which is the statutory metric. 

Nick: Yeah, absolutely. And I think it helped to identify things that clearly needed improving from some of the earlier versions, it identified things that were missing from some of the earlier versions as well. And one of the things that I think is really critical going forwards with the statutory metric, and I know Government are committed to this, is to say that process needs to continue, not necessarily at the same frequency as happened before, because that would drive everyone mad probably, but there needs to be an ability to continue to update, a kind of a feedback loop, essentially, to say what's working, what's not working, what can still be improved on as science and our understanding about the natural world improves. 

Julia: Katie, where were you on day one? 

Katie: I was in the office, I think, from memory. Yeah. Waiting for the excitement. I think I went for a drink with colleagues afterwards. 

Julia: Happy birthday, day one. 

Katie: Yeah, I think so. 

Julia: Happy BNG day messages. 

Katie: Yes, brilliant. Many LinkedIn posts. 

Julia: Nick, where were you? 

Nick: For the February date, I was at work. For the April, so when it came in for smaller developments... So it started for major developments in February and then when it hit the majority, I'd fled the country. I was at the other side of the world in the southern half of Chile on holiday. 

Julia: What was day one like for you, Nick? Because I felt that we were, and I mean Katie as well, I want to come to you, there was, it was like day one then it became, we're getting closer, we're getting closer, we're getting closer. And then it was day one. And there's been so much reflection from industry and we've talked about it a lot, but we've never heard from you in terms of whether your role has changed or not. What was that like for you, that moment, and how's it been in the last six months? 

Nick: It was certainly unusual in the sense that you've touched on and, you know, some things earlier on. So there's a lot that's happened in the intervening period. We've had political changes. There was COVID, a pandemic, and the collapse of the Bill in Parliament and its return to Parliament, what felt at times like a bit of a revolving door of ministers. And part of me always felt all this actually happened because, although, you know, you retain or try to stay very, you know, confident publicly about, yes, this is going to happen, and there’s no reason to doubt that, there's a nagging part of your brain that's also thinking but it what if it doesn't? But, part of me also was reassured by then, that because people were expecting it and because of some of the groundwork that had been laid, that even if my worst fears, if you like, have been realised and for some reason something happened and the legislation never came to be implemented, I think we'd still get to the same place, possibly over a longer time frame. 

Julia: Right. 

Nick: But I think people would still be recognising the value of having a capacity to understand and measure nature, recognising what it can do for the natural environment, but also what it can do for us as people and communities, and delivering that through local planning policies or delivering it through, kind of, voluntary initiatives, etc. It would have been different and it wouldn't have been a standard as the, that's a great thing about having legislation, you can basically tell people you have to do it in a particular way. So, it wouldn't necessarily have looked like that. But I do think a head of steam had been built up, which would mean that there was a positive legacy anyway that would move forward. 

Julia: That momentum, yeah, definitely. Nick, there's a lot of people and, brilliantly, you know, in other countries around the world watching England and watching England's mandatory net gain. What would be your lessons learnt in terms of, OK, that didn't quite work and then what would be your lessons learnt in terms of that was a really good thing to do, if they're thinking about their own policies? So these are policies about how can development enhance nature. 

Nick: Yeah. So you talked earlier about the kind of level of socialisation that took place, the role of industry and others in collaborating. I think that's true. But I think there were areas where perhaps that happened to a lesser extent than ideally might have been the case. So, as an example, the metric incorporates intertidal habitats because planning policy in the legislation incorporates that area. In fairness, that came in quite late in terms of… so we hadn't done much engagement with that sector prior to the legislation being first tabled. And, with the benefit of hindsight, I think we could have done more to prepare that sector for something that was coming and engaged with them because I think they felt to a degree that they hadn't had the level of engagement that other sectors potentially had. 

Julia: And the trickiness about, yeah… 

Nick: And it's quite a dynamic environment as well. And so it's trying to understand that. I mean, the, the beauty for me is how much I've learned about different things over this whole journey as well as things I never knew anything about personally. I think there's also just a recognition that it's a political exercise as well. So, people, understandably, get very concerned about the nature outcomes and they're absolutely right to be, they need to be front and centre. But this is also about a political exercise to a degree as well. It's linked to planning policy, it's linked to legislation. So I think being able to, and alive to, how do you engage and talk about the kind of human aspect of all of this as well. And I think actually we did that and I think that's been a positive from practice. Had we had the resource to start with, I've already mentioned this, but we wouldn't have had an Excel-based metric. I think as Excel spreadsheets go, it's a very beautiful one, it's possibly the best Excel spreadsheet in the world, I would say, I would argue. 

Julia: I think it's beautiful, I really do. Yeah. I'm with you on that one. 

Nick: But you wouldn't necessarily start from there if you were starting from scratch and had the resource to do something slightly differently. Plus side of this is, as you said, it's gone global. Excel is a global thing. And so people around the world have found it relatively straightforward to adapt to their own local circumstance. 

Julia: Yeah, there's metrics then, which is I think part of them being based on England's biodiversity metric, being announced at the next COP. 

Nick: Yes. 

Julia: So there there's a whole like, you know, range of nature metrics. So there's certainly a legacy piece there. 

Nick: Yeah, definitely. And it's fascinating to see. We've been trying to plot where it's gone around the world as well. And there's, you know, the planning authority in Saudi Arabia, there's governments in Nigeria and elsewhere, all asking for versions of essentially what was the metric developed in England, but obviously adapted for their own local circumstance. 

Julia: Katie, what would be your lessons learned for other countries, in terms of that law-making side of things? 

Katie: So I think in terms of something that was positive, what we touched on earlier, and having a metric that's been in place for such a long time and a policy which was already being established as voluntary, was so helpful because you've just then got consensus on something that's working. And when you are trying to get something across, agreed, it's so helpful to be able to point to stuff on the ground and say, well, it's already working basically, or at least being developed. Like really, iterative policy-making basically is super helpful. 

Julia: To start grassroots, start industry, build on that. 

Katie: Yeah, exactly. And then in terms of something I would change, yeah, I agree on the spreadsheet. I think, yeah, we can probably move that slightly into this century in the future, although completely understand why we had to have a spreadsheet at the time. And then for the policy, I think just give yourself lots of time to get everything done because there is, yeah, there's a lot. 

Julia: It's really tricky though, because I think the, we don't have the luxury of time not to act. Lawmaking does take time and the debates and the public consultations, which are, you know, equally as valid as working through that. So I think, actually, all in all that two-year mark, you know, any longer and you know...? 

Katie: Yeah, yeah, there's a real trade off. 

Julia: Yeah, exactly. I mean, just, you know, it felt like we were working up to the rollercoaster ride and then, versus you can't rush it and get it wrong in that way. 

Katie: Yeah, 100%. And there is some annoying stuff when you're making something law because you don't really have flexibility in the same way. So you do have to change certain elements to make sure that it fits within this legislative sort of backing. So yeah, there's some things where I wish you could make the law flexible but, unfortunately, there's no way to do that. 

Julia: I remember actually, we were in a call and when we had the draft statutory metric, I went through the user guide and downloaded where the 'musts' were because I knew that that was going to be, yeah, because it's in the user guide for the Statutory Instruments, it’s like law, and there was something like, I don't know, like 20, 30, something like nearly 30. And then, when the actual user guide came out, it's like that had been trimmed down. You know, what's the legal basis for that? 

Katie: Yes, a careful check of all of the musts. 

Julia: Yeah, exactly. 

Nick: And to me, that's a really interesting lesson as well, is the roles of legal professionals in the whole process as well. Because you can write policy and you can, yeah, you can engage in that whole process and think, actually we've got this right, yeah, we understand each other. But then when the legislation itself gets drafted and has that actually transferred across into the actual text? So these things were inevitable. And I think this is probably true of every piece of legislation that anyone's ever drafted, where people have been working on the policy around it, and then they've come back and realised, oh, actually the legislation doesn't quite say that. 

Katie: Yeah, yeah, that editing. I mean, it's almost the way policy works. You have your primary first and that gives you your powers, but you don't know all the detail then. So then you come to draft a secondary, but you can only do it within the primary. But you might not have known exactly what the policy was going to look like at that point. So it's, yeah, basically we just want to change the way that the law works. 

Nick: And that was a real challenge actually for colleagues involved in developing the register. And then, OK, you were working on it at the time as well, because as you said, you had the primary legislation, but the secondary legislation that is going to govern and decide what the register has to do and has to not do, hasn't been written or tabled. But from a technical perspective, you need to build something as well. You need to start building this digital register and it's a difficult process because, advice to anyone doing any type of digital project is trying not to have to keep changing it too often as well because... But, inevitably, you do because you haven't got the legislation there and you don't quite know. You can make assumptions when you think it's going to be like this, but you can't give someone a guarantee it is. 

Julia: I know, what was really interesting about the register was, because we had versions of the metric and, brilliantly, Natural England held webinars on what the register would look like, but you couldn't put it up there until it was actually law. You know, so even that was like, well, I think it says this or does that, but I don't know until it's actually law, until it's there. 

Nick: Yeah. And, and I think, I mean, it's probably, it came as a surprise to me, I don't know for Katie, but the hope had been that things would go live ahead of commencement as well, so that information could go on it, only to discover legally that wasn't possible. 

Julia: I remember when you told me that and I was like, God, of course that makes so much sense because it's not law yet, but can we not see it? It's like, no, you're going to get it day one. Yeah, definitely. 

Katie, what does successful BNG look like? And I'm talking about mandatory net gain. What does successful mandatory net gain look like to you? 

Katie: So, I mean it sounds obvious, but I'll explain it. But it's all about meaningful gains. So, by that I mean ensuring that there's expert ecological advice, supporting plans to make sure that you're proposing habitats that are suitable in the local context or for a development site, obviously not proposing habitats that are incredibly sensitive to humans, as an example. And then making sure that's effectively secured as well with adaptive management in place. 

And I think I mention this on every webinar, but it's a 30-year agreement. There's climate change to consider. I think we really need to be thinking about how this might change the context of the site and working in mechanisms to fix that if management isn't working as intended. So I think that on the ground, change is going to be really key to consider. 

Julia: And I don't think you can say that too many times. It is that adaptive… because we have the metric, we have the endpoint, but it’s making sure that that adaptive management is, that you're going to be able to get to that. 

Katie: Yeah, it's all about being feasible and making sure that you are proposing something that you can reach is going to be really key. 

Julia: So successful mandatory net gain, meaningful net gains on the ground. 

Katie: Yes. 

Julia: Nick?  

Nick: I would echo completely what Katie's just said. But I think also there's a whole paradigm shift involved in terms of what we think about development, what we expect to get from development as a process as well. 

Julia: More the cultural?  

Nick: Exactly. So, I think it really is, and you're seeing this already now with big developments. I think it's still cascading through, if you like, when you get down to some of the smaller organisations. But that whole change of approach where, generalising now, but in the past nature really was an afterthought in too many development situations. That's, yes, an ecologist would be brought in the last minute, very little scope to do anything. You'd get approval, a quantity surveyor or planning engineer, a lot of what was in was out again and then no one would think about that long-term management and maintenance. 

And now you're putting nature right at the start of the process rather than at the end of the process. And I think that's completely flipping what we expect from development, for the good. And to me, this is the start of the process. So we've got the legislation in place now. I think, make sure we don't think that it's job done, it's job started, if you like, as well. There's a lot more to do, a lot more scope to further improve things. 

Julia: I think it's such a lovely way of putting it because you're right that there's like a spectrum of success. 

Nick: There's absolutely the spectrum of the net gains and what's important for biodiversity, but it's the shift that's happened, and no academic research could possibly capture what we're living through. 

Julia: You know, I've just seen this time and time again. I mean, early on we would get a feasibility and someone would say, please do a desk-based study and, you know, what do you think net gain is? Which we would be delighted with. You know, like early on they're thinking about net gain. You know, we'll pop on open-source data, you know, make some assumptions, I can see a woodland. Now, people want more of an answer and we're actually getting commissioned to do surveys really early on because they actually say no, no, no, what do you mean you've had to assume that’s the best biodiversity on site. What if it's not? And it is really, really shifting. And we've still got to get to that place when biodiversity net gain is the heart and the lifeblood of decision-making in development. But it is shifting the conversation earlier already. 

Nick: Absolutely. And I think it's really critical, though, that you talked earlier about working in partnership with others. And I think BNG has been a fantastic example of that collaborative exercise, and continuing that as well because everyone has a role to play in this. It's not, you know, be you an ecologist, a landscape architect, equally, if you're the lawyer, if you're the person doing the finances, if you're a planner, you all have a role and your role is shifting in all of this. And we can all learn from one another as well. And yeah, it's just continuing that sense of collaboration, I think. 

Julia: So when we talk about successful biodiversity net gain, who is responsible for what? Katie? 

Katie: So, I guess on the ground it's industry, right? In terms of, as I said, about expert ecological advice, making sure that's all happening, then that's going to be really, really key. 

We are obviously responsible for the policy and we'll have feedback measures in place to make sure that if there are emerging issues, we can work on them. And I think we've got really good relationships with lots of stakeholders for BNG. And it's really helpful that people, through different channels, can just raise issues and we can log them and work on them. Even more now with social media. 

Julia: Yes, definitely, I'm on LinkedIn all the time. 

Katie: So yeah, there's, there's definitely that element of it. And then, obviously, you've got the local planning authorities who are responsible for basically going through the planning process, making sure that the gain plans are appropriate and doing their responsibilities in that area. 

Julia: I think it's such an important discussion because there's so much talk about, and rightly, so, you know, they're worried about local planning authority resources. That's not just BNG, that's, you know, general discussion, monitoring, enforcement and all those things. But well, I think whenever someone says I'm worried about this, it should be who's responsible for that? And you're right, industry has a role to play in terms of competencies with the colleges, data standards, things like that. 

Nick, where do you see that map in terms of who's responsible for what? 

Nick: So, in some respects it's quite clear in the sense that there are bits of BNG where certain organisations have a clear responsibility. So for example, Natural England is responsible for running the register. However, it's not responsible for what is on the register. That's the landowner and the planning authority making sure that actually what they're proposing is sensible, etc. So, to some extent, it's unpicking some of those relationships and responsibilities. 

I also think around, it is 30 years as well, so people understandably very quickly jump to questions around, well, how do we enforce on some of this. But enforcement's a failure at the end of the day as well. It's meant that something hasn't , and how can we step in early to avoid people needing to having to enforce against people as well? 

Julia: That's such an interesting thought because everyone's saying who's going to enforce this, but you're so right, if we're relying on enforcement, we haven't got the point. 

Nick: Essentially. I mean, there is a place, you'd ultimately always need something there to say, if you don't do this, there is a consequence. But if that's your sole approach to things, then I think you're setting yourself up to fail, because what's the real opportunity? And Katie talks about the importance of adaptive management and things like that, so BNG requires that you provide updated reports back to the consenting body on a periodic basis. That requires you have a habitat management plan that's in place that, again, is speaking of adaptive management. There are plenty of points in that journey. So you say, actually things aren't working quite as we intended. What do we need to do to get back onto track here? There'll be circumstances, externals to use that potentially, some of which you have control over, some of which you may have no control over. But if everyone just waits for 30 years and then says, oh, it's all gone wrong, we've wasted 30 years. 

Julia: Yeah. And I think it speaks so importantly to a point about the cultural shift, you know, and BNG is so much more than just, you know, is someone enforcing it? And that absolutely is part of the question. But it's more about what are we doing here? You know, we're changing development versus nature to development underpinning the enhancement of nature, because that's what we need to survive as a society, and have that monitored. 

There is increasing noise and discussion about the, I guess, developers saying I'm exempt from biodiversity net gain. And I just want to touch on it because that's very current at the moment. And I think it comes back to the point about who's responsible for what, because there's absolutely a role for training up not just your LP ecologists, but validation officers and things like that. 

Nick, just to touch on, there's recently been updated guidance about exemptions. So where can people find that? 

Nick: So, a really useful document to understand how net gain works and how it interacts with the planning system is the planning practise guidance that's published by MHDLG on biodiversity net gain. And it sets out, I mean, there's separate specific guidance on exemptions, but it also talks about exemptions as well. And one of the challenges that was raised was a concern around exemption. 

So there is an exemption in place for some customer self-build developments and also developments below a particular size and threshold with it in terms of their impacts on nature. And the issue for customer self-builds was that, previously, people hadn't really had to say very much about whether they're a customer self-build project or not to planning authorities. So there was a confusion among some planning authorities around what is it, what does it mean to be a customer self-build? What do you need to do to evidence whether you are one or not? 

Julia: I wouldn't know, to be fair. 

Nick: No, but actually, as is often the case, there was previous guidance that had been issued in another kind of context as well. So, what the PPG has helpfully done is just highlighted that as well. So it's drawn people's attention to what's already out there, which people previously didn't really need to pay much attention to, but it's actually really helpful in terms of understanding whether this exemption applies or not. On the de minimis, we're keen to get more evidence if this is an issue or not. 

Julia: Can you just explain what de minimis is? 

Nick: Yes, sure. So, it means that if your project is impacting a habitat of less than five metres squared if it's area, or five metres in length if it's a linear thing, then provided it's not an important habitat, then you don't have to deliver biodiversity net gain. 

Julia: So you could have two hectares but develop on hard standing and not impact any habitat? 

Nick: Potentially, yes, but… 

Julia: It's loss or deterioration, isn't it? Because I think people think it's direct loss, but it's loss or deterioration. 

Katie: For all of the regulations, is impact measured by the biodiversity metric? 

Nick: Yes. 

Katie: So if there was an impact recording the metric, that would count for de minimis? 

Julia: The metric can record direct loss, but it also can record the decline. 

Katie: The reducing condition. Yes, as long as it's less than 25 metres squared area. 

Julia: Thank you for clearing that up because I think a lot of people think it's just direct loss, but it's not. It's what's impacting the metric that can be a declining condition or type 

Nick: And it is good practice. If you're in doubt, basically submit your metric as well as, and that will help clarify the situation. And it's, it's there for good reasons in the sense of it will be challenging to ask people who need planning permission to put up a new sign to then say, well, we also have to deliver biodiversity net gain on this sign and they're trying to look for a fraction of a unit from the point point point point whatever. I'm not even sure that the metric could measure that. But there is a reason as to why it's there. There is a concern out there as to whether people are using this as a route to avoid biodiversity net gain. I think there's a need for more evidence as to whether that's the case or not. I think also a bit of recognition, and that's going back to what we were saying earlier, biodiversity net gain has started. It is six months in, but it's only six months in. 

Julia: I know.  

Nick: It's, you know, planning authorities, everyone, is trying to understand and get to grips with it. So I think there is a real danger that we pile on as a kind of, oh, you're doing it wrong, you're doing it wrong. And we need to, ultimately if people are deliberately manipulating a situation then that clearly is wrong. But also people may be making best endeavours, best efforts, just generally not fully understanding yet how the system works. So I think there is a need for ensuring that information continues to be shared, best practice continues to be shared and that kind of collective endeavour to better understand and then better apply the approach. 

Julia: You're right, actually, and we just talked about social media and if people are raising this worry, that's really important to do so, but it's probably they thought it might be direct loss or, you know, whatever that might be. So there is that sense checking before we suddenly rush to do those kind of things. 

So that's mandatory net gain for the Town and Country Planning Act. Way back when there was talk about mandatory net gain for NSIPs and I certainly work on nationally significant infrastructure projects, NSIPs, they follow the development consent order route. We have been planning for net gain for so long and many NSIPs, on a voluntary basis, commit to biodiversity net gain. And Nick, it comes to your point, it's now becoming the social norm in that kind of way. But, it's a really interesting one because mandatory net gain does help, because in every single NSIP you're like, is it part of the DCO? Does this sit outside? Do we do 10%? Do we do 20%? What do we do with spatially? Where do we locate BNG when we've got a long linear scheme that's going through ten local planning authorities? 

Katie, it's gone a bit quiet. What is the latest on mandatory net gain for NSIPs? 

Katie: Yeah. So we are still very much exploring how to bring NSIPs into BNG. So, Government is fully committed to making sure that infrastructure works hand in hand with environmental improvements. And there will be an update soon. So just watch this space.  

Julia: We've just got a new Government, so… And I think that's an important point to note because even all that hard work, you do then have to recognise you just had new Government come in, and then it was summer holidays and things like that. Nick, where's Natural England with managing net gain offensives. 

Nick: So we're really confident that it's going to happen. As you said, it's in the legislation, but the timetable was always free to come in later. And in fairness actually in a lot of NCIP schemes, they were often the early movers on biodiversity net gain as well. They're the ones, you know, applying the approach. We've done a lot of work just looking at what are NCIPs currently doing and it's pretty much impossible now to find a promoter that's not offering some form of biodiversity net gain. I think where the legislation, when it comes in, will be really helpful is that people are in a space where they can choose if a bit is a bit tricky or difficult. We just don't have to do that. So we won't do it, or that aspect of it, we'll do the rest of it. But we just won't, that bit's a bit awkward. 

Julia: Would you say we don't know what good looks like? 

Nick: No, exactly. So I think some you've got, they're following exactly what CCPA says and mapping that, but others it's a bit variable. So I think once we have the legislation, that would be really helpful to just put everything on the level playing field. 

Julia: Even what's the red line boundary as an MCF and things like that? Yeah, definitely. Is biodiversity net gain the answer? You know, we're losing nature and people put their hopes and dreams on biodiversity net gain. Nick, where do you stand with biodiversity net gain and how it can help nature recovery? 

Nick: Biodiversity net gain is super helpful as a policy. It's really good at helping achieve some of the Lawtonian principles of bigger, better, more joined up. But it's not a silver bullet and we need to recognise this as well. If people place all their hopes on biodiversity net gain is right, this is the mechanism that will solve the nature crisis, we have a problem. Luckily, people don't think that, in Government certainly anyway, and there are other mechanisms being used as well to try and address. So I think reframing what we expect development to do is brilliant. It will make positive contributions in terms of nature, but don’t lose sight of the fact that we need other mechanisms and other schemes to actually deliver what nature needs. 

Julia: And I think that's a lovely framing because it's certainly the step towards the wider Nature Positive agenda. Nature Positive is, I love the way that it's framed as a global goal, we’re all part of the global community. You know, we all have a seat at the table. Some elements of our industry, they’re not building, so they can't do biodiversity net gain, but they can all contribute to Nature Positive. 

Katie: BNG is a great example of putting nature at the heart of decision-making, and stuff like that is really helpful, and essentially giving nature a seat at the table, making sure we're not treating it like a free and endless resource. And just really putting stock in how important it is. And I think recently there's been quite a lot of good comms around how actually nature's not just number of trees or species. That's obviously got its inherent value, but 55% of GDP globally is also dependent on nature. So I think part of it is just considering that this is very, very important and work on those integrated solutions to try and solve it. 

Julia: So just a small ask. Nick? 

Nick: Again, agree with what Katie said, but also the collaborative aspects as well. So if we leave solutions to the global nature crisis to environmental NGOs and the conservation sector, we have a problem. This is a challenge for everyone, but there's real opportunities to work collaboratively across land management, across the development sector, and the community groups and others as well to try and address this. And I think it will only work done like that as well. If we leave it just to one section of society or one group, we won't be able to solve it. 

Julia: Is there anything important that we've not yet talked about? 

Nick: I think the importance of not stopping. So thinking about this is a continuous endeavour, if you like… and I'm trying to think what else we haven't talked about. 

Katie: Yeah, that's going to be really important. Just keep going, do bring issues if you have them. Like we've said, it's been very collaborative and don't feel like you can't raise problems if there are some because I think we need to continue working to make sure that BNG is working as intended. I think it's always important to highlight the complete importance of this. I mean, the state of nature in the UK is frankly quite terrifying. So, I think it's just, if we haven't highlighted already, it's really important that we...  

Nick: And watch out for technology, and I don't mean that in a nasty sense. And explain it in terms of actually it's becoming increasingly remarkable what technology is able to do in terms of acting as a tool for ecologists and others to help speed up processes, to help undertake indicative assessments around habitats and things like that as well. So, I think there is a real opportunity. We're in a world where data is, we've become so data rich, that the kind of power of using that data is increasing exponentially all the time as well. So, being able to tap into that and harness that for good, I think is a real opportunity going forward. 

Julia: Yeah, definitely. It feels like we talked so much about this is nature's moment and there's things that I get really excited about, but I'm also worried that we're going to miss it. We're just not going to get there. Katie, when it comes to nature and where we are now, what is your greatest fear about missing the mark? 

Katie: I think it's exactly that, that we don't realise that it's not working as intended until it's too late. It's always a massive issue. We've lost, I think it's 97% of our species-rich grass in our country, 40% of species are in decline. It's very, very important that it does work. So that is the overarching fear. I guess to mitigate that with some positivity, as I mentioned, we, we do have those feedback loops in place so that we can work out what the issues are and work on them. And we've also had BNG as a thing for a very long time so we can already see some great examples of how it is working. But yeah, the fear is always that it's not enough or not quick enough. 

Julia: Yeah, definitely. Nick, what do you worry about? 

Nick: I think, along those lines and also just the speed of political processes as well. We have quite fast electoral cycles. Politicians get concerned about issues that happen to be quite prevalent at the time. Whereas the decline of nature is ongoing and it's steady and it's going through different administrations. And so it's being able to think much longer-term about actually, we can't keep thinking in short-term cycles about things because it will take a while for things to recover. On a positive note though, I am always amazed by, given the opportunity, the resilience of the natural environment as well. And I think that to me is the hope in this as well, that, yes, the situation is bad, but given the right set of circumstances, it's not not recoverable. 

Julia: There will be sites on the register. Katie, who is your role model? 

Katie: There's so many fantastic role models that every day you're inspired by people you work with. There's so many passionate people in Government. I probably won't give an individual shout out. In terms of why I ended up in my career, I'll give a shout out to my dad because he took me out on walks since, well, before I could walk because he's an avid bird watcher and I think really inspired both me and my sister to go into quite environmental roles. So yeah, shout out to Dad. 

Julia: Shout out to Dad, what's his name? 

Katie: John. 

Julia: Shout out to John. Nick, who is your role model? 

Katie: Well, firstly, credit to John. Who's my role model? I find it's a really difficult question to answer in a sense. 

Julia: Why difficult? 

Nick: Because there's lots of different people who, I admire. You, for example. I think I've always… we've worked together for many years now. I've always admired you, the way you work, the way you engage with people. There are others that we've worked with as well that inspire me. I find nature itself inspiring. And we were talking about it before, so things like, I live in a very urban area in London and I'm always inspired when I'm walking through essentially quite a concrete environment in some parts of the city, and you've got bits of nature that are constantly trying to reclaim it as well. And I just think that to me is inspiring. 

To follow Katie's theme, I guess I personally got inspired by nature many years ago when I used to go fishing when I was young. I was a rubbish person at fishing, I very rarely caught anything, but I liked the kind of sitting there and just… 

Julia: Very peaceful. 

Nick: Yeah. And just that period of time where, I imagine it's the same if you're painting or 

something like that as well, where your brain quietens down and you start to notice what's going on around you as well. That's what I really liked about that. 

Julia: And final question, if there's someone starting off in their career in our industry and they're like, I just want to do nature. They want to be part of the team, the gang, on the mission for nature. It's really tricky to know what to do in your career and where to start. Katie, what's your advice? 

Katie: I think first would be, if you do have that passion, absolutely go for it because I think you can learn whatever skills you need, you can get experience, but that passion is going to make you so good at your job. And if you have a rubbish day, you at least know that you're doing it for the right reasons and you do feel quite inspired. 

Julia: So true. 

Katie: And then on a practical level, I'd probably say read everything, keep up with legislation, listen to podcasts like this, watch webinars, because trying to understand the wider holistic picture of environmental change is really important. And there are so many exciting things happening in environmental legislation. So just keeping on top of, I mean, it's hard, but keeping on top of it all is really helpful. That's why we don't sleep so much. 

Julia: But it's a really good point because I think it's such a fast-moving space and careers, even the careers are changing as well. 

Katie: Yeah, exactly. 

Julia: Nick, what's your advice for someone just starting out thinking, I'm here, I want to do nature? 

Nick: So my advice would be whatever your role is, whatever your profession is, don't feel you can't do something that's connected to nature. So, I have no background in the natural environment at all. Academically, I'm a historian. I've worked in different sectors, but I've been involved with biodiversity net gain for a while. So I think, think about how you can surround yourself by people who know what they're talking about and soak that in. 

And then think about how you can apply it in your own particular way, whatever your role happens to be, both within the day-to-day of your work, but also in terms of how you're talking to others in your wider circle, be they contractors, clients, your family, whoever, as well. Because not everyone may be as passionate about nature as you might be, but there's things about nature that they can connect with and you can help them connect with them as well. It's just finding where those connections are and then building on that. And that will be different depending on who you're talking to. 

Julia: Katie, Nick, thank you very much indeed.

Katie: Thank you for having us.

Nick: Thank you, it's been a pleasure.